All religions, arts, and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. -Albert Einstein-

SCIENCE AND RELIGION
Science is the struggle of man in the outer world. Religion is the struggle of man in the inner world. Science makes man struggle for Truth in the outside universe, and religion makes him struggle for Truth in the inner universe. Both struggles are great, no doubt, but one ends in success and the other ends in failure. That is the difference. Religion begins where science ends. The whole scientific method is based on observation and experiment; but the moment man realises that there is something beyond observation and experiment he will give them up and leave material science behind. Science will always have to deal with finite bodies, and God is infinite.According to Vedanta Hindu philosophy the Microcosm and Macrocosm are not different; they originate from the same substance. Actually time, space, and causation are not separate entities outside; they all exist in me, that is, in my mind. The whole universe is inside man.

im of the opinion that it is better to know fact than to believe or have faith because that is when you are most vulnerable to manipulation.

Avatar.

Thinking as a rational person, do you honestly believe that individuals had dreams from dieties?that religious text is a result of these dreams and that it isn't at all possible that maybe some people(who were inquisitive enough to seek knowledge) created these fantastic stories?think about it.

Religion is a spell that keeps us thinking that someone is going to save us, when the helping hand that we are looking for is at the end of our arm.

(03-25-2010 01:52 PM)avatar Wrote: SCIENCE AND RELIGION
Science is the struggle of man in the outer world. Religion is the struggle of man in the inner world. Science makes man struggle for Truth in the outside universe, and religion makes him struggle for Truth in the inner universe. Both struggles are great, no doubt, but one ends in success and the other ends in failure. That is the difference. Religion begins where science ends. The whole scientific method is based on observation and experiment; but the moment man realises that there is something beyond observation and experiment he will give them up and leave material science behind. Science will always have to deal with finite bodies, and God is infinite.According to Vedanta Hindu philosophy the Microcosm and Macrocosm are not different; they originate from the same substance. Actually time, space, and causation are not separate entities outside; they all exist in me, that is, in my mind. The whole universe is inside man.

Quote:

"The moment man realises that there is something beyond observation and experiment he will give them up and leave material science behind".
Have you ever had a cold, broken bone, case of hives, pimples, ilness or any other reason to take medication created by those scientists you think should give up their search. Or perhaps you are alive, a chance you may not have had in the times before science, but you are entitled to your opinion, because science is probably the reason you have it. Still,everyone's ignorant opinion is as valid as everyone elses ignorant opinion.

Let me give this to you straight up. First of all, your quote sounds nice; but what if there does not exist anything that cannot be observed? Your statement has the implicit assumption that there exist unobservable things to begin with, which is suspect.

I believe that (1) in order for something to exist, it must have attributes. I.e., there can exist no entity which has no characteristics because there would be no manner in which for it to exist. Furthermore, (2) anything with attributes can be observed. Therefore, (3) all things that exist are observable.

Your stance fails further in that there is another big difference between the scientific method and faith. (These two things are what are comparable; there is no such body 'science' like there is 'religion'. One could perhaps speak about 'scientific consensus' versus 'religious ideas', but the dichotomy 'science vs. religion' is an ill-formed one.) Religious people think that they are correct. Practicers of the scientific method understand the limited nature of the practice. So one is a claim of truth and the other is a claim of an educated guess. Science isn't sounding too strong, after all, is it? Fortunately, the reason scientific thinking is so popular despite the fundamental uncertainty is because it lends itself to being a work in progress towards truth instead of a stagnation. And this is very good, because if you're wrong and you don't progress you will never, ever become right.

So to relate this to what you said: Scientific consensus is pretty 'ignorant' of an opinion, but is humble in that it understands its place in relation to truth. Religious claims, however, come with no such humility. You say everyone's ignorant opinion is as valid as everyone else's but at the same time you hold your opinion as higher and more correct than everyone else's.

Nice try.

And God said unto John: "Come forth and receive eternal life!"
...But John came fifth and won a toaster.

(03-26-2010 09:23 PM)The Hanged Man Wrote: Let me give this to you straight up. First of all, your quote sounds nice; but what if there does not exist anything that cannot be observed? Your statement has the implicit assumption that there exist unobservable things to begin with, which is suspect.

I believe that (1) in order for something to exist, it must have attributes. I.e., there can exist no entity which has no characteristics because there would be no manner in which for it to exist. Furthermore, (2) anything with attributes can be observed. Therefore, (3) all things that exist are observable.

Your stance fails further in that there is another big difference between the scientific method and faith. (These two things are what are comparable; there is no such body 'science' like there is 'religion'. One could perhaps speak about 'scientific consensus' versus 'religious ideas', but the dichotomy 'science vs. religion' is an ill-formed one.) Religious people think that they are correct. Practicers of the scientific method understand the limited nature of the practice. So one is a claim of truth and the other is a claim of an educated guess. Science isn't sounding too strong, after all, is it? Fortunately, the reason scientific thinking is so popular despite the fundamental uncertainty is because it lends itself to being a work in progress towards truth instead of a stagnation. And this is very good, because if you're wrong and you don't progress you will never, ever become right.

So to relate this to what you said: Scientific consensus is pretty 'ignorant' of an opinion, but is humble in that it understands its place in relation to truth. Religious claims, however, come with no such humility. You say everyone's ignorant opinion is as valid as everyone else's but at the same time you hold your opinion as higher and more correct than everyone else's.

Nice try.

Round of applause for The Hanged Man, I absolutely could not have said it better myself.

*Awaits silence*

We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake

(03-26-2010 09:23 PM)The Hanged Man Wrote: Let me give this to you straight up. First of all, your quote sounds nice; but what if there does not exist anything that cannot be observed? Your statement has the implicit assumption that there exist unobservable things to begin with, which is suspect.

I believe that (1) in order for something to exist, it must have attributes. I.e., there can exist no entity which has no characteristics because there would be no manner in which for it to exist. Furthermore, (2) anything with attributes can be observed. Therefore, (3) all things that exist are observable.

Your stance fails further in that there is another big difference between the scientific method and faith. (These two things are what are comparable; there is no such body 'science' like there is 'religion'. One could perhaps speak about 'scientific consensus' versus 'religious ideas', but the dichotomy 'science vs. religion' is an ill-formed one.) Religious people think that they are correct. Practicers of the scientific method understand the limited nature of the practice. So one is a claim of truth and the other is a claim of an educated guess. Science isn't sounding too strong, after all, is it? Fortunately, the reason scientific thinking is so popular despite the fundamental uncertainty is because it lends itself to being a work in progress towards truth instead of a stagnation. And this is very good, because if you're wrong and you don't progress you will never, ever become right.

So to relate this to what you said: Scientific consensus is pretty 'ignorant' of an opinion, but is humble in that it understands its place in relation to truth. Religious claims, however, come with no such humility. You say everyone's ignorant opinion is as valid as everyone else's but at the same time you hold your opinion as higher and more correct than everyone else's.

Nice try.

Round of applause for The Hanged Man, I absolutely could not have said it better myself.

*Awaits silence*

Cheers from the crowd.
The Hangman conflated the argument proposed by avatar and the diametrically opposed argument proposed by kevlar.
Truly a piece de resistance in the anals of logical thinking.
And the hobbit applauds it.
Encore, Encore, Encore.
Author, Author.

Perhaps I am right in claiming that everyones ignorant opinion is as valid as everyone elses, since it was your opinion with which I was agreeing. The opinion is still valid, it's perhaps the opinioner that may require validification.
Ergo if you read my post you will HOPEFULLY understand that I did in fact address what you said.
Thanks

(03-28-2010 01:14 AM)kevlar Wrote: Perhaps I am right in claiming that everyones ignorant opinion is as valid as everyone elses,

Well said.
EWE are smart enough to cover your sorry IGNORANT butt.
and you are clearly IGNORANT of so many facts of life....
want me to prove it?

why do those Elie Lily SCIENTISTS fly down to Rio and then venture in the bush seeking the heathen?
...to probe the brain/wisdom/knowledge of the rain-forest shaman?

duh do EWE have stock in Eli Lily or in the rain forest?
duh what was that shaman's name that enlightened the weLIE LILY board of directors?

you are sooooooooo IGNORANT kevlar.
TRUTH has difficulty penetrating kevlar?
FULL METAL JACKET that is half empty?

do I need to use GOLD or SILVER bullets?
cosmic BULLETins do no good that is clear.

YOUR armour comprised of a holier-than-thou IGNORANCE is far too thick.
And EGO drives this tank lined with Kevlar?

(03-26-2010 07:17 AM)e-pl Wrote: wrong!

religion is all fake, it is a result of impatient people.

I say you are wrong.
You lack imagination.

Einstein sez you are wrong too.
He thought religion and science needed each other.
Planck said the answers found would be poetic and creative NOT just scientific.
Jung would tell EWE to rest your feet and LIE down on his couch and spill your pythagorean beans.

JC sez you are IGNORANT too.
Joseph Campbell my hero, the fella who helped save mi.
And his real life mirror image buddy he used to learn from CJ.
JC and CJ
Joe and Carl Jung can help you find what all mythical heroes seek?
The Fountain of jungneSS?